<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (9) TMI 886 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348129</link>
    <description>Excess baggage charges recovered from passengers were treated as not liable to service tax in light of earlier Tribunal and Supreme Court authority, so that component of the demand was unsustainable. Cenvat credit taken before registration was not denied at the pre-deposit stage where the underlying entitlement to credit on input services or capital goods was recognised, so the assessee&#039;s waiver claim succeeded on this issue. Reimbursement of medical insurance charges paid to a foreign service provider was held not includible under Rule 5(1) because the valuation provision had been struck down by the Delhi High Court, so that demand also failed prima facie. Complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2017 09:09:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 886 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348129</link>
      <description>Excess baggage charges recovered from passengers were treated as not liable to service tax in light of earlier Tribunal and Supreme Court authority, so that component of the demand was unsustainable. Cenvat credit taken before registration was not denied at the pre-deposit stage where the underlying entitlement to credit on input services or capital goods was recognised, so the assessee&#039;s waiver claim succeeded on this issue. Reimbursement of medical insurance charges paid to a foreign service provider was held not includible under Rule 5(1) because the valuation provision had been struck down by the Delhi High Court, so that demand also failed prima facie. Complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>